Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3979 (ALL)

Hori Lal v. Ajay Kumar Jaiswal

2016-12-09

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard Shri Ashish Kumar counsel for the revisionist and Shri Udai Chandani for the opposite party. 2. The instant Revision arises out of SCC Suit No.47 of 2012, filed by the opposite party, for arrears of rent, eviction and damages. 3. In this suit, by the impugned order dated 15.10.2016, the defence of the revisionist has been struck off. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opposite party is not the owner of the accommodation in question. He is therefore, not a landlord. In the absence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties, there was no requirement of depositing the rent and therefore, the order striking of the defence under Order 15, Rule 5 has wrongly been passed. 5. The second contention is that an identical application was filed earlier and the same was dismissed. The second application for the same relief was clearly not maintainable. 6. He has further contended that once an application for striking of the defence under Order 15, Rule 5 has been filed and the defence had not been struck off, the relief in this regard stood refused and the same could not have been granted on a subsequent application. 7. The third submission raised, is that the Additional District Judge, functioning as a Judge Small Causes Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit whose valuation is Rs. 60,300/- such a suit after the coming into force of the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 2015 is to be tried by a Civil Judge (Senior Division) working as a Judge, Small Causes Court. 8. The issue of pecuniary jurisdiction has been raised only during arguments. It has not been raised before the Trial Court or in the memo of revision. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties, referring to the relevant portion of the impugned order, submitted that the first application although it may have mentioned Order 15, Rule 5 therein, was clearly in application, that the written statement filed by the tenant was belated and therefore, the same was not liable to be taken on record. 10. No prayer that the defence of the opposite party be struck of was either raised or considered therein. He further submitted that mere mentioning of a provision or a wrong provision is not material. 11. 10. No prayer that the defence of the opposite party be struck of was either raised or considered therein. He further submitted that mere mentioning of a provision or a wrong provision is not material. 11. It is therefore, contended that since no plea of striking of the defence had been considered earlier at any stage by the Court concerned, the submission that the application under Order 15, Rule 5 which has been allowed by the order impugned is second application is factually incorrect. 12. It is next submitted that an application under Order 15, Rule 5 , filed by the opposite party was heard and now that an adverse order has been passed, the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction is being raised and this plea is clearly mala fide. 13. Despite the rival submission raised at the Bar, the revision can be decided only on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction. 14. The controversy as to the jurisdiction of the Judge Small Causes Court has been decided by this Court, vide judgment dated 29.08.2016, passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 278 of 2016, Shobhit Nigam v. Smt. Batulan and another. It has been held that consequent to the amendment, in Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, an SCC Suit having a valuation between Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh shall lie before the Small Causes Court presided over by a Civil Judge (Senior Division). The suits having a valuation of more than Rs. 1 lakh would lie before the Additional District Judge/District Judge constituting a Small Causes Court. 15. Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the order impugned dated 15.10.2016 is without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside. The SCC revision is allowed. 16. The matter is remanded back for a fresh decision, after hearing the parties, by the competent Small Causes Court, presided over by a Civil Judge (Senior Division). Revision allowed.